- This topic has 166 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
- Posts
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, there was a tremendous thirst for knowledge and of course this culminated in the Socialist movements all over the World.
Now, thanks to the “snake oil salesman” type politicians, Socialism is a dirty word and we are regressing to the ignorance of the Eighteenth Century. The Establishment has never liked the idea of teaching the proletariat to read and write.I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysthe 19th century the Church of England sponsored most formal education until the government established free, compulsory education towards the end of that century. University College London was established as the first secular college in England, open to students of all religions (or none), followed by King’s College London; the two institutions formed the University of London. Durham University was also established in the early nineteenth century. Towards the end of the century, the “redbrick” universities, new public universities, were founded.
But anyway
Personally, I don’t think Labour want to keep the people poor, Moe. Neither do I believe the current government want the people to be badly “fed, housed or educated”. May be in a minority here but I believe the vast majority go into politics because they believe their views can make a difference for the good. What actually is “good” is the debate.
When Blair was in power the World was doing extremely well economically, not much Climate Change to pay for and very little global terrorism (until his last years) etc. Your daughter went into teaching at an extremely good time for the World economy. Trouble is when times were good Blair and Brown (as my mum used to say) “didn’t save any money for a rainy day”. World economies – not just Britain – have never really fully recovered. Hardly surprising any department (allowing for inflation) has less to spend now than it did in the 90’s. Teachers / education in the 90’s had it good because it was after many years – first under Thatcher (after she put things right) and then Blair. Teachers benefiting from a better economy. New Labour under Blair were not Socialist.
However, what you describe sounds suspiciously like my comprehensive school days at a time when Labour’s James Callaghan was in power; when Britain was doing far less well than Europe / The World. Things were extremely bleak. Roofs leaking, lessons in the unheated “potting shed”, big class sizes and teachers leaving. Ahhhh those were the days… that was a proper Socialist government!
Value Is Everything“Roofs leaking, lessons in the unheated “potting shed”, big class sizes and teachers leaving.”
Yet another socialist idea this government has taken and made its own.
We don’t have to save for a rainy day, Ginge. This was something that Thatcher spouted about, made people think, running the economy was like planning our own domestic shopping bill. We’re a sovereign state. The government prints money, it controls the economy. And Conservative governments control it so that the rich get richer and if the poor do well, we’ll, that’s ok but not necessary. I’m not saying that all Conservatives are like that but, unfortunately the current Conservative government got rid of all the good, decent, honourable Conservatives ( Grieve, Soubry, Stewart, Clark; he was retiring anyway, but he wouldn’t have stayed under this lot) because they could see through them. Anna told us what she thought of Johnson years ago, as did Conservative party members that we spoke to. We’ve really hit rock bottom, politics wise. The only good thing is that Corbyn’s gone and, yes, I loathed him, too! Another problem we have at the moment is that some Labour supporters can’t bear the thought of voting for a Labour leader like Keir that Conservative voters, such as the friend I spoke to the other day, would be tempted to vote for. The amount of venom I get from some Corbynites is horrible, but, thankfully, it does seem to be diminishing. At the end of the day, we all want a fair, decent society where everyone can fulfil their potential. It’s not much to ask for, is it?
Rainy days do exist Moe. If only more people saved for one.
The saying “saving money for a rainy day” wasn’t something Thatcher said as far as I know. Just a saying my mum and her mum before her used to use. Putting a bit by just in case of worse times ahead… And boy did we need that money when the housing recession hit! Something that self employed people (in those days at least) had drummed into them… And that should go for governments too when things are going so well. That was after all why (or so we thought) chancellor Brown got his nickname “Prudence”, ie as the definition says: “acting with or showing care and thought for the future”. When Brown was supposedly prudent it was ok; but when you think Thatcher said about a Rainy Day you think she was having us on. Well it was Prudence Brown who was found out to be the fake – not a thought for the future.
I recall you saying about food banks being all the fault of the current government. Could it be more to do with society? People not saving for a rainy day? Credit cards have brought good things, but not all good. With “credit” being so easily available nowadays not surprising so many individuals don’t bother saving… Which is exactly the reason food banks are needed. When a downturn happens in someones life and they’re already in the red, I think its great food banks are there to help. Yes, the reason for losing their job or not earning as much may not be their fault. In reality that’s probably nobody’s fault, But not having savings certainly adds to the chance of needing a food bank. Yes, there may be some who need a food bank who’ve never had enough to save; but the vast majority can do without that extra holiday when times were good or making do with a mobile telephone that’s not quite as good etc. Food banks are generally society’s answer to society.
Value Is EverythingGinger, I broadly agree with you with regard to people sailing too close to the wind and prioritising mobile phones over food (the percentage of earnings spent on food is much lower now than it was 40 years ago and as you say credit cards were a rarity, if you couldn’t afford something you saved up until you could or you didn’t have it) but with interest rates for savers virtually at zero where is the incentive to put money aside, especially with inflation heading to 5%?
But people using food banks are people like nurses. We shouldn’t have a society where people like that have to rely on them. I agree about credit, though. Throughout my life I’ve only ever bought things that I could afford. I’ve never paid interest on my credit card and when interest rates were good I used to live on credit, pay it off every month but bank the money. I don’t understand the need to have the latest phone, tv etc. It is, though, easy to go into a downward spiral and I could easily have done that when I was young and in my hippy days. One of the earliest books I can remember reading is Orwell’s ‘ A Clergyman’s Daughter’. Not a well known book of his but as relevant now as it was then. It’s so easy to go in that downward spiral and society should be there to help people pick themselves back out of it. I guess that and Zola’s Germinal shaped my political thinking.
There is no incentive Salut.
tbh Although am a saver (higher interests would financially be good for me) until a lot more households are in the black and / or financially stable I do recognise it’s best for the country to continue as it is… And as I said, credit has brought more good than bad. Just that private individuals as well as governments should save a bit when they’re doing well… And to blame governments for something that primarily came from society is wrong.
Value Is EverythingThatcher told us to work hard, Diana told us to play hard , there were some good years in the 80s but boom and bust ain’t the way forward , the stock market is up 14% the year after the 2020 fall , lots of people ran for the hills yet you,ll only make real money by playing when the markets have fallen
Yes it is easy to get into a downward spiral, Moe; and those that do shouldn’t be ostracised. However, the fact it is so easy means anyone within reason can need food banks. So of course nurses can get into trouble and need food banks. It does not mean their wages are unfairly low; just that the particular nurse has overstretched her/himself. Most people could end up needing food banks if their money management is poor. Frequently it is not the actual wages that matter when it comes to food banks. It can be (not always but can be) purely when a person’s outgoings are more than their wages.
As I said, people that get into trouble financially should not be ostracised. However, because we don’t like to “blame” people that get into financial trouble… People of the left (perhaps knowingly perhaps not) wrongly blame someone else – sometimes the person’s employer, certainly the Conservative government.
Value Is EverythingLet’s get one thing clear: the Tories do not care about those at the bottom of the economic ladder, no matter how many lies about levelling up they spew.
Take the example of the recent cut in Universal Credit. That reduction of £20 per week, costing those families affected £1,040 per year, was ostensibly done because the government couldn’t afford the £6bn annual cost.
Yet the government could have raised £14bn annually by making a simple change to capital gains tax, something it had pledged to do but then (surprise, surprise) reneged on.
Tax breaks for the rich; wealth reduction for the poor.
But somehow people don’t see this. 🤷♂️
Still, I’m sure those poorer members of society would have just wasted that extra twenty quid on fags and booze, eh, Ginge?
I’m beginning to think that Blair’s knighthood is a way of deflecting public awareness away from how well Labour are doing in the polls at the moment.
Yes Boris’ “dead cat”.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysOh dear Glad’, more sanctimonious Labour clap trap. Again you’re thinking the worst of everyone that doesn’t hold your own political leanings. Think everyone was in favour of that particular payment which was am sure well used by the people it was intended.
The “cut” you’re talking about was – as you know very well – £20 extra (that’s “extra”) per week given to those on Universal Credit which was always meant to be temporary. £20 Extra per month to help get them over the worst stages of the pandemic.
In 1997 the then Labour government brought in the Winter Fuel Payment; a fantastic extra (that’s “extra”) payment for pensioners. But the extra payment wasn’t throughout the year, only for the worst of the Winter. So after Winter it ended. “Ended” is imo a fair way of describing an extra payment that ends. If you’ve got a political chip on your shoulder or political axe to grind I suppose you could say it was “cut”.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.